I want an American V8, but by year 2012...

[onewhippedpuppy]

As we all know, less weight is better. Unfortunately, with modern crash standards, less weight = more money. Aluminum and carbon fiber are both lighter than steel, but also more expensive. You simply cannot build a car today that is lightweight, but inexpensive to produce.

[legion]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Eventually the new rules will be a catalyst for the advancement of engine technology, which I predict was probably the govt's goal in the first place.

That's the issue.

What if there is no substantial efficiency to be wringed out of the gasoline engine?

(Numbers for illustrative purpose and pulled out of my posterior.)

Let's say that thermal efficiency of gasoline engines increased 30% because the fuel standards from the 1970s. The government passed similarly restrictive fuel-mileage standards expecting similar gains in efficiency.

Experience (and reality) tell me that the first cut at improving something yields the greatest improvement. The next cut yields less of a return. The cut after that even less...and so on. If the first cut yielded a 30% gain in MPG, the next cut will yield a 15% gain, and the next cut a 7.5% gain, and so on. In other words, the benefits diminish.

Also, the benefits get more expensive for less gain. The first cut you go after something cheap and obvious. The second cut something less obvious and more expensive to figure out. In the end, you are spending millions of dollars for a 0.05% gain.

I don't know that another 30% improvement in efficiency is possible.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Legion, I'd be willing to bet that the IC engine is a dying breed. I don't remember exactly what the ideal combusion cycle efficiency is, but I think it's around 30%. Breyton cycles and all that. Ultimately though, there's only so efficient you can make an internal combustion engine. It means that there's still additional efficiency to gain, but I think we're rapidly nearing the point of diminishing returns, as you mentioned.

Like I said, I think we'll be seeing far more diesels and hybrids in the very near future. Diesels have been a long time coming, Europe has been on that boat for a long time. A bit further out, I predict that fuel cells will become feasible. Necessity is the mother of invention, and companies now have a LOT of motivation.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Proof you don't need high-tech to get good MPG AND good performance.

"At the 2008 NAIAS, the BMW 335d featuring Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance for maximum output of 265 hp and peak torque of 425 lb-ft. will provide a clear and convincing demonstration of these qualities. On the road, this means acceleration from 0–62 mph in 6.2 seconds and average fuel economy of 23/33 mpg (city/highway, provisional data).

The BMW X5 xDrive35d, will also debut in Detroit. Like the 335d, the X5 xDrive35d offers sporting character through BMW Advanced Diesel with BluePerformance, while standing out as a high-torque Sports Activity Vehicle with excellent qualities for long-distance motoring. The BMW X5 xDrive35d accelerates from 0–62 mph in just 7.2 seconds and offers average fuel economy of at least 19/25 mpg (city/highway, provisional data)."

That MPG is somewhere between 20-40% better than the respective gas models, depending which one you look at. That peak torque of 425 lb*ft is at 1750 RPM! On Top Gear a season ago, Clarkson called a 535 diesel with sport package the funnest BMW you could buy.

[Mule]

I think we will see a big increase in HiPo diesels. I don't see them restricting HP anytime soon.

[legion]

I've owned one diesel in my life. (MB 300D.)

I sold it after a year of ownership.

If the temperature was between 0º and 32º, it had a 50% chance of starting.

If the temperature was below 0º, it had a 0% chance of starting.

I was late for work 2-3 times a week in the winter because of this car. I sold it as soon as I could afford to.

Are modern diesels better in the winter?

[kaisen]

Okay, I'll post:

V8's have their place. They are efficient in heavier vehicles where torque is neccessary. Peak power per displacement is a largely useless measure. However, fuel consumed per liter of diplacement is a chemical function. The stoichiometric rate determines how much fuel is used for how much air the engine draws (ex, A/F ratio 14.7:1). A small engine is much more efficient at part-throttle low-rpm use ... it is simply drawing less air and therefore less fuel (although diesel is a different story). Horsepower (not torque) is a function of revs. Rev a small motor high enough and you will make as much horsepower as a large motor at lower rpms. Reciprocating mass and longevity favor revving a smaller motor, or at least a shorter stroke. Torque (not just peak torque) favors displacement. The short-stroke small-displacement motors that will rev high and produce horsepower are often the worst at producing low-end torque (ex, Honda S2000). So THOSE motors sip fuel at idle and part-throttle, but can produce relatively high peak horsepower numbers at high rpm WOT. Better fuel economy AND decent power.

As I mentioned, today's heavy vehicles require torque. There are at least two ways to increase torque in the short-stroke small-displacement motors and maintain their part-throttle low-rpm efficiency: forced induction and/or electric motor assist. Electric motors make 100% of their torque at 0 rpm. Coupling an efficient electric motor to a short-stroke small-displacement motor produces an overall power curve that still has low-end torque (when called for) and also good peak horsepower. Turbocharging (or to a smaller extent, supercharging) can also 'boost' low rpm torque at WOT if tuned correctly, but not hurt fuel economy at part-throttle or idle.

It isn't that the V8 is dead. But how much power is enough? Not that long ago, 200 horsepower and 200 lb-ft torque was more than adequate for the 85th percentile family car (Ford Taurus, Toyota Camry) and 250-300hp was reserved for rocketships (Corvettes, 911s, 951s, etc). Today, 400hp is not uncommon and 500hp isn't just for hyper-exotics. 600hp isn't rare, and there are quite a few monsters with 1000hp. The upcoming Corvette ZR1 makes more than 620hp, yet is refined enough to let your mother drive.

My point is that V8s, and the power they are currently capable of (400-600hp) are uneccessary for 'normal' vehicles. There are several naturally-aspirated 3.5L-3.7L V6s that make 250-300hp. Force-feed them and they make 350-400+hp without breaking a sweat (or a rod). That's probably still too much. Okay, think of the common 2.0-2.5L four cylinder, about 150-200hp. Now turbocharge with direct inject and, voila, 250-300hp and similar low-end torque, about the same as a modern V6 with at least a liter more displacement for better part-throttle fuel economy.

The buzzword is 'hybrid', of course. Take that same 2.4L DI turbo and add a small electric motor (nothing exotic or expensive) that adds power only at low rpm where it could use the torque. Then compare the overall power curve to a 4.6L Cadillac Northstar V8 or BMW 4.4L V8. The little hybrid motor matches or outperforms it, at every rpm. At part-throttle it is almost twice as efficient. If the motor is set up to turn-off at stoplights and during decel, it is somewhat more than TWICE as efficient in an EPA test cycle in a 3500 lb vehicle. And this wouldn't be a full-on (read: expensive) parallel or serial hybrid set-up like a Prius, but a 'mild' hybrid with a $1000-2000 premium.

Sure, you could apply the same technology to a V8 and it would be equally amazing, but with double the power.

TODAY the strength of the 4.5-6.5L V8 is in simplicity, therefore cost, and perhaps durability/longevity. For applications that benefit from those strengths, they will continue to have a niche.

The rest of the story is marketing, media, and public opinion. IF automakers could develop a super-efficient V8, buyers may still shy away from it. The government doesn't have much to do with it.

Viva la V8!

[kaisen]

Originally Posted by legion

I've owned one diesel in my life. (MB 300D.)

I sold it after a year of ownership.

If the temperature was between 0º and 32º, it had a 50% chance of starting.

If the temperature was below 0º, it had a 0% chance of starting.

I was late for work 2-3 times a week in the winter because of this car. I sold it as soon as I could afford to.

Are modern diesels better in the winter?

Yes, much better than the thirty-year-old technology you had in your 300D. Does your modern gas car start better than your 1981 Plymouth Horizon?

[onewhippedpuppy]

My parents had a Volkswagen Dasher diesel and a Vanagon diesel back in the '80s. I clearly remember stringing out the extension cords in the winter each night.

Modern diesels are hugely improved, no cords required. That kind of consumer perception is what has held back diesels in the USA.

[72doug2,2S]

My Uncle has a country place that no one knows about. He said it used to be a farm before the motor law.

Rush

[Mule]

Kaisen, while you post is accurate, a lot of it is irrelevant. High peak HP & low torque ala S2000 makes for VERY poor driveability. This is where V8s excel. This is almost like the PC/Mac argument. V8s arent as popular as they are because people are stupid. The provide the best option for utility & driveability for a wide range of vehicles. Until someone comes up with comparable low end torque, nothing will change. Diesels may provide an option, small, high winding motors never will. As for performance, look at the clip of Mark Anderson & his 20 yo 928 annihilating thos 6 & 4 cyls. Where is he killing them? Off the corners, where V8 torque is king!

[onewhippedpuppy]

Mule, you make the exact same point as Kaisen. However, he adds that with the addition of a turbo/SC or an electric motor, that high-revving small-displacement motor has the same low-end torque as a V8. Best of both worlds.

My '93 Saab 9000 Aero has a 2.3L 4-cylinder with a turbo, 250 lb*ft of torque at under 2000 RPM. It's not lag free, but it's damn close. When new, Saab liked to advertise that it had faster highway passing acceleration than a Ferrari Testarossa. Easily gets 30 MPG on the highway. It's not quite the V8 torque down low, but it has plenty of grunt. At higher RPMS, it's damn fast. Best of both worlds.

[the]

I think the internal combustion engine (either gas or diesel) is fine, and is not really the problem.

Emissions were supposedly going to kill the IC engine, now we know that problem has been solved. A modern IC engine can put out cleaner air than it intakes.

The IC engine also can be very fuel efficient. If you want it to be. But in a world of (close to) 300 hp Honda Accords, which have performance that was 25 years ago in supercar league, how much are we really pursuing efficiency?

Also, on weight, sure, the safety standards may add some weight, but that's not the majority of the weight. Even low line cars are loaded up with all sort of heavy options, power seats with 10 motors in each, etc.

[onewhippedpuppy]

Power stuff may add some weight, but it's not normally more than 3-400 lbs. Compare base models vs loaded models, it's not a huge difference. It's just not legally possible for cars to be as light as they once were. Required airbags, a multitude of crash standards to meet, it just can't be done without advanced materials.

[dd74]

Our diesel is a turbocharged V6, has 400 lbs of torque and gets 25 mpg., and a sub 7-second 0-60 time.

If there ever was an argument against the V8 in non high performance cars, the diesel is that argument.

[frogger]

And diesel fuel is so incredibly cheap.

[dd74]

Originally Posted by frogger

And diesel fuel is so incredibly cheap.

The gas mileage evens the price out. It's cheaper to run than my V8s.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by dd74

Our diesel is a turbocharged V6, has 400 lbs of torque and gets 25 mpg., and a sub 7-second 0-60 time.

If there ever was an argument against the V8 in non high performance cars, the diesel is that argument.

My 928 has about 350 ft lbs of torque, goes sub 6 second 0-60, gets 22-23 mpg & is 20 yrs old. You call that improvement?

[dd74]

Originally Posted by Mule

My 928 has about 350 ft lbs of torque, goes sub 6 second 0-60, gets 22-23 mpg & is 20 yrs old. You call that improvement?

Yeah. Mine is an 07, seats five, is AWD, can carry cargo, has a ton of safety features, and a range close to 600 miles.

Yours is...rusted.

[frogger]

Originally Posted by dd74

The gas mileage evens the price out. It's cheaper to run than my V8s.

I would love to see the diesel fuel prices fall below gas prices, but I don't know if that'll ever happen.